My name is not William, Bill, Wilhelm, or any name with Will in it. Shotgun Willie's is a brand name for a good chili kit. I like good chili, and the name sounds cool, so I adopted it. Shotguns are also cool. In fact, ALL guns are cool. I wish I had a few dozen more. Okay, demographics. I'm horrible. 40, married 17 years to the same woman. Two kids, a daughter of 15 (God help me), and a son who will be 13 the day before Halloween. I'm white, Catholic, an ex-smoker, pro-America, pro-Christ, pro-life. Politically, I'm stuck somewhere in the never-never land between a libertarian and a stict constructionist Constitutionalist. I vote Republican, except in certain rare instances having to do with a candidate's position on abortion and gun rights, in that order. A choice between two skunks means I wish I'd registered as a Democrat so I could vote for the least-destructive candidate. In a two-party system, the elephants are generally the lesser of two evils, although I question that sometimes. There's no question in my mind, however, that the donkeys are, for the most part, exactly what they were bred to be-jackasses.

"Liberal" is a euphemism for "Marxist". I will always use the term "Marxist", for I'm a firm believer in calling a spade a spade. "Pro-choice" is a euphemism for "pro-infanticide". I will always use the term "pro-infanticade". "Affirmative action" is a euphemism for "racial buggery". Ethnic background doesn't amount to a hill of beans; I don't care if you're GREEN. Racial buggers MAKE it matter. I will always use the term "racial buggery" when I FREEp, because my other choice for the hyphenated suffix would not be considered appropriate by our benevolent online dictatorship.

"Gun control" has to do with one's ability to hit the target he is aiming for. When applied to matters of legislation, the term is an inappropriate euphemism for "despotism". I will use the terms "despotism", "gun-grabbing", or "sheeple control" when referring to the unconstitutional means by which government attempts to unlawfully seize our property or deprive us of the means to utilize same property for our own security, food-gathering, or other lawful activities such as recreational shooting (my weakness; I simply love things that go "bang", kick back at me, and put holes in things. A recoil-sore shoulder feels good, and I love the smell of gunpowder).

"Environmental activism" is a euphemism for "Chicken Little Syndrome". I will stick by that phrase or the more colorful "environmentally-deranged" moniker. There is such a thing as a steward, and a steward is much removed from a Chicken Little. A steward generally doesn't crap where he eats, and tries to leave a place a bit better than he found it. His reasons serve a much higher purpose than politics.

Animals DO have rights. They also have lefts, and they also have wrongs. Pets are meant to be enjoyed, but they are not our masters. If it craps where I eat, I will kick its ass and throw it out. Otherwise, kill it, grill it, and make sure you leave enough of its friends and neighbors behind, so that they can be grilled and enjoyed as well. Bon' appetit'! (Oops, sounding a bit French there, mucho apologeto-no, sounds too Spanish-wouldn't want to offend the tens of thousands of illegal Mexicans swarming across our borders, would I?-maybe I should just say, "Enjoy lunch" and have done with it, right?)

"Animal-rights" activists are in close alliance with the Chicken Littles, and there's only one difference that I can see: The Chicken Littles are mostly puppets on the strings of the mega-Marxists (the true Marxists who put their money where their mouths are), whose purpose is to help further the true environmentalist motive: CONTROLLING THE SHEEPLE. Most are ignorant dupes who think SUV's are cooking the planet. The "animal-rights" wierdos actually BELIEVE this crap, and want to rid the world of all humanity with one exception-THEMSELVES. Okay, so now you know me. FREEpers, unite! Whoops! Almost forgot! You will see me from time to time writing "its/hers/his" or "it/her/him". This is because I made a mistake on 23 September 2005 of saying "him/her/it". This is inexcusable. Since the English language does not provide for a "neutral" gender pronoun, I have chosen "it" to represent "trans"sexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers, and people who have sex with animals, power tools, or other objects. Since the masculine gender is no longer acceptable as the language default, the use of him/her/it is thoroughly unacceptable. Therefore I've reversed it in such a manner as "it" comes first, followed by "she"(or derivatives thereof), and, lastly, "he"(or derivatives thereof). After all, we wouldn't want to offend anyone, right? DISCLAIMER: I will hold to the belief that "gender" refers to the grouping of words which identifies the subject to be masculine, feminine, or neuter, and not as a substitute for the word "sex". I don't care what the latest dictionary reads-I care what the Webster 2nd Edition Unabridged reads. So phooey on youey!